Author
Topic: Civility vs Decency (Read 5155 times)

This is a spin-off from my post yesterday about Quentin Fucking Letts, but its something I've been considering for a while, and wanted to talk about more, as a general trend within current political discourse, especially among the “opinion-formers” in the media.

Its hardly a novel or surprising insight, I'll be the first to admit. I know that its a particular aggravation of the brilliant American blogger HTML Mencken, of Sadly, No! fame and the more I see it within our own papers and political discussions, the more it pisses me off.

Some people, it seems, are far more in favour of civility in a discussion than actual decency. As anyone who reads me fairly often knows, I am hardly the poster-child for civil discussion. I rant, I swear, I mock and I troll. “All your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored” and all that. But I think, underneath it, I am a fairly decent person. Not in the 'decent left' sense, hell no, those people are the poster children for Civility over Decency (especially as Alan 'Not the Minister' Johnson's lack of concern for human rights shows), but in the basic sense that no matter how nasty or cutting or rude I am, I'm only violent in my presentation of language.

In short, I'm not the sort of person who calls for pre-emptive attacks on enemy countries. I do not condone torture. I despise 'extraordinary rendition', hate racial profiling, cannot stand people who barely disguise their bigotry and blood-lust under the guise of cheerleading the “war on terrorism” and the war in Iraq especially. I don't think we should be throwing out everyone whose skin colour is a little too dark, nor cutting benefits for those most at risk in society. I don't think we should deny gays, atheists, Muslims, transsexuals or anyone else rights that the majority enjoys.

That's decency. Having some motherfucking respect for the people around you, not demonizing people who have never hurt you, not acting like a jerk simply because “I've got mine, and fuck everyone else”. Or cowering in a corner going “oh no, the scary people different to me are here, we must deal with this immediately!”

Because, lets face it, when you dig behind the supposedly 'respectable' and civil writing of papers like The Sun, or the Daily Mail, or especially The Express, that is all that is left. Its dressing up ugly and vile opinions in nice sounding tones. A perfect example is that insufferable cunt Peter Hitchens, who just recently denied that homophobia has any real meaning. Well I'm sure gay people all over the world who are being killed, denied rights, attacked and smeared for their sexual leanings will be SO glad to hear that.

But you see, he said it in a nice way, with clean respectable words and no swearing, so he's perfectly alright!

Whereas on the other hand, all those nasty people over at the Guardian who were saying rude things about Thatcher are evil and nasty leftists. Never mind that none of them are contributing to a set of beliefs designed to deny Thatcher any of her basic human rights. Never mind that Thatcher put in place policies that did ruin many peoples lives, to benefit a few. Oh no, the problem is all those horrible and sweary Guardian types, who refuse to shed a tear at the idea of Our Great Leader passing away.

Well fuck that, and fuck anyone who thinks in that way. Oh boo-fucking-hoo, the nasty little leftists won't be all nice and civil when discussing your sacred cows? Civility is “manners masquerading as morals”, to quote Sidney Blumenthal. Its about an unspoken social code that relates in absolutely no way to the actual ethical ideas. Its a way of controlling the forms of argument, of dismissing people without actually having to refute what they say.

Noting the letters that Lett's reprinted at the Mail, the common theme among them seems to be that Thatcher's leadership did not enrichen or improve their lives, so why the fuck should they have to kowtow to her and her legions of brainless followers and admirers among the press corps? Letts doesn't answer that, because he can't. The idea of treating such a woman as a great leader worthy of such honour is disgusting, and the level of invective it deserves is well beyond that expressed in the Guardian. Presumably Letts would have us all drink tea with our little finger's sticking out while discussing the pro's and con's of torture and genocide as well.

The fact is that you simply can’t fight some people and the ideas they espouse by being civil. You have to let people know that they’re vile, hateful scumbags with no sense of standards or simple human decency. You have to stand up to them and (rhetorically) kick them in the balls. Repeatedly, in some cases. This whole “oh I respectfully disagree with your views on kicking out all the 'Muslim terrorist scum infesting this country with foreign diseases'” bollocks has to stop.

And yes, I am an angry leftist. If you call yourselves a decent fucking human being and you look around at the state of current affairs: a supposedly left-wing government tearing down civil rights and engaging in pointless foreign wars while the gap between rich and poor rises, and a bunch of cretinous reporters in the tabloid media who are willing to give them hell over the only few things they have done right, then you'd be fucking angry too.

You just described Mormons perfectly. "We proudly drive homosexuals to suicide, but at least we don't smoke, drink, or swear!"

Logged

The Jerk On Bike rolled his eyes and tossed the waffle back over his shoulder--before it struck the ground, a stout, disconcertingly monkey-like dog sprang into the air and snatched it, and began to masticate it--literally--for the sound it made was like a homonculus squatting on the floor muttering "masticate masticate masticate".

Civility is a complex little screening process that exists to see if you belong in "the ol' boys club", you see it in parliment and any other government function, you could make a point that blows a hole betwen the eyes of whatever you contest, but if you are antagonistic, or dont have the proper "respect for proceedings", it will be completely ignored.

Civility and bureaucracy are the sword and shield of self important cowards and sycophants.

Logged

Is that why you won't let it see you, why you can't bear the gaze? Because you've done terrible things. Then there are the transgressions you never even knew you committed, those are the worst because those you can never forget, all you can do is suspect.

Civility is a complex little screening process that exists to see if you belong in "the ol' boys club", you see it in parliment and any other government function, you could make a point that blows a hole betwen the eyes of whatever you contest, but if you are antagonistic, or dont have the proper "respect for proceedings", it will be completely ignored.

Civility and bureaucracy are the sword and shield of self important cowards and sycophants.

Precisely.

I saw a perfect example of this today, actually. A Daily Mail reader had left a comment on the story about Barry George, the man who had been unfairly jailed for 8 years for a murder, who was being released after being found innocent. He said something along the lines of "we should have executed this wierdo so he wouldn't be stalking the streets".

I have a blogger pal who watches the Mail closely for such comments, and chews out the people making them, which he did with considerable gusto in this case. So the twat who made the original comment emailed him, expanded upon his point (he is wierd, wierd is bad, he deserves to die) and THEN proceeded to have a go at the blog owner for his excessive use of the word "cunt", which is supposedly worse than wanting an innocent man dead.